Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22])
	by h1439878.stratoserver.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with ESMTP id r6KL4Kr8025702
	for <rainer@rainer-schoepf.de>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:04:21 +0200
Received:  from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by mx-ha.gmx.net
 (mxgmx104) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MPr5i-1V4ToT06Ww-0050am for
 <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:04:15 +0200
Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94])
	by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6KL1ioS004471
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:01:45 +0200
Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [127.0.0.1])
	by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6JNb4ox020779;
	Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:00:59 +0200
Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with
          spool id 10299885 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 20 Jul
          2013 23:00:59 +0200
Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de
          [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with
          ESMTP id r6KKoxG6010975 for <LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de>;
          Sat, 20 Jul 2013 22:50:59 +0200
Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com
          [74.125.82.180]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with
          ESMTP id r6KKooUJ032523 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128
          verify=FAIL) for <LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de>; Sat, 20 Jul
          2013 22:50:52 +0200
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p59so951941wes.39 for
          <LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 13:50:50 -0700
          (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.20.97 with SMTP id m1mr15274713wje.31.1374353450089; Sat,
            20 Jul 2013 13:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from palladium.home (host86-155-210-83.range86-155.btcentralplus.com.
          [86.155.210.83]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
          eu1sm56345638wib.8.2013.07.20.13.50.47 for <multiple recipients>
          (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Jul
          2013 13:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0)
            Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACKZBPWfcegW+5axif=KqKc_cAzpRU5dZq2U4Ti9q8A+zaq+FA@mail.gmail.com>           
            <CANQYN6x3Hp5L0NoxnfEXF8Uk1GGFTOuZajeeuGCJpRSHp8HREQ@mail.gmail.com>           
            <CACKZBPUuynMgXVtaOwTGQO-0PVt=4i4fG9-LBcPTnxsz2bMMUA@mail.gmail.com>           
            <CANQYN6yN7TP9CsQkWAdM8TYMDEwqBKtKFGpy5N3Zm97GhvfcTw@mail.gmail.com>
            <CACKZBPXR4-qZR-h7yZNApO+7MniX7ww0=wuxwJgKSq1-vr9fwQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <51EAF82E.2010506@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:50:54 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Request for argument specifiers which generate unique csnames
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <CACKZBPXR4-qZR-h7yZNApO+7MniX7ww0=wuxwJgKSq1-vr9fwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
List-Help: <http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=LATEX-L>,
           <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE?body=INFO%20LATEX-L>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:LATEX-L-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:LATEX-L-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Owner: <mailto:LATEX-L-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Archive: <http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=LATEX-L>
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam); Detail=V3;
X-GMX-Antivirus: 0 (no virus found)
X-UI-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:ewtfY3Uh4BU=:SPRckUrTLMrp24sm0yuFkyLJpV
 yFI00ctXR3NhzHGRZ3pMg5QiJZD2NXQANzR9zvg+G3EK18r51prJvn4GSEvLzOw6dkwjBePxx
 2z79bS+fS/+P3DfnNFlwQKKIm69rvOp2sSq9LfhKI9jUZtYeF4CxDH7jkBTbwF4Scykyx+gzS
 Mpx0zcXgEWu1Ui0bZrBA5m8CJPL41aUPZlBMq07/Jmcs5HR6JrkMIeRDGAHgcStH6jDJSqHXx
 MpgeXs+kJpWUEi7PeZQyOwHdu/G420aKMBGKTfxkZkA70RLR3eSIrnGaWNcfJcbeDCyHu4/FE
 4YR3Dvp+WubN/xAC1tCY0lDNRo1I0ko8ZFfzuGz8ndwPClB/12LGB2gV01WfPdz4RNX610uxR
 aUsAMBKENaDqMxgYvu72UAVL451FI/58gLgB7JAXOqYg2HypLFnEZe4jmSV4EtkUaDNts2zFB
 xiwDCmbScCmTwKCgKmuJxuLYKTgMmuz2icE3HYzA6Fw2RuJn3ZWZaJO5u+/pML3AqL5C1fOak
 4cCQ+9F2ov45OacLkrtfS82uZygezw8UFJPWdbHG8l1AXfI4U9rzj7M/JRte9xmb4H8FilaWD
 r2Zj0gXgykZfoZdFTZ2KePEOAscerixvrDcFIS5HWKDWFx5rhfgt/22TpHb4nIbq05kb3jyyk
 EP9Dy7Q+rSP+Fb6whMuCs5h3n4J6xlZxB4+Eaf4UD3VhGxITCLVy0mWMPt4qKok/Gd8AH6Pag
 uqmeP5EHbJdUkIpswpzF8UchtwbKB7vELsVExtCEl9ygH56KDV+CcWT2nWi5fnjlAHZGW9aop
 mVdDmQD01RftZCyljYm8nCHgDG4FCa365wE4FJnHN/LpifFlKE1ZXHWOj2zyyiGaVLsF6YrrW
 6mdyM06z9s5LsWEaV0v20MbiYIY6tBeHVuXk3cHYGvnjK1NuH/zuCjDPUcuqf38zSd5qCgpB6
 DexFGlzL85IqSfKbXDlgMyUvAKdexmRw5Op7c8e5nvX8Cdm/me7uVThv/1gRPs/uAJsMMwAAK
 J9EBWKnA/vy3sPwuoxWK1deXDAo4+FVty6+scfC5T/g14PzB07cBBIgx24bWQx4df5rjnYgRR
 lBCGXGnrIJSfPAd6eWDXh6f4QekH7yut1QMdNi9EFeuXZAGVu6H+3JBttBCPM393ryMwj6qAB
 ewIrjiswQkrQqswwSsOWGbQx1Vjz3PTJH5u0oNfVfeWbr+tAmA7+xk5Bu13QnJ7Htjkyrb8BQ
 I8USHT2QARmrQQGvRRXmlFonq8YppcTL7cnH0J9dze07RLczxQ8pqz6rvdAjITxSs+6YPSQlR
 9I1TxdS8a9P5ADH5so4Z5oBFTd86SUuOtiwVEXEwcMpCIreC7W41ua1KxYIYA1wBXl8TIvuEA
 JhM/p1YBptK6DIoAU3TvEiGVf+ZLMTTggouJiDpNNeImgU+35YZxD5PgeqsTqsFYF6ZZryeqM
 cD0XowSFsAAS2eAeKv6eloHV9qS2TfiyvgTiE2RrB+QWDPL6wBQvNW2HoUP423NAHL684OeZd
 hOB6jQGYdPuxT9K4PZjbJDZc9Sym/ttkxztw2ymzh5rme5C74fCMhDYWyvHhQxih0gupzCedN
 +INI9ke0hF3/HIPTro+tXKY8LIvHLsta
X-UI-Loop:V01:B2CGsYcGWiU=:wuu4tRAYZAbA8v3q0KpIHQNCbNLSiTicNYMVSWnjFrs=
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 7269

On 17/07/2013 10:39, Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>> Well, there are very many conditionals in expl3, and experience has
>> shown that the specifiers T and F are useful for visibility (they
>> would be even if we only provided the TF versions of conditionals and
>> not both T and F too).
> 
> Oh, I love T and F.
> 
> Slightly off-topic question: why are there no FT variants? I've
> encountered situations where it would have made the control flow a lot
> more readable. This is certainly not critical but also, I expect,
> quite painless to add.

At one point we did have a few, but it overall seemed clearer to go with
always having the T branch first, if at all. No technical reasons.
--
Joseph Wright